Erika Kirk's Amazing Powerful Speech

[Angela Channing]

A certain Falcon Crest fan, perhaps?

I'm assuming you mean me but you don't have the guts to address me directly.

I expressed my sympathy for Erika Kirk because no one deserves to be murdered, particularly in the way her husband was. However, I'm not going to overlook the fact the Charlie Kirk held offensive sexist and racist views. Am I supposed to praise him just because he was murdered? Am I supposed to ignore the fact that he promoted deeply bigoted opinions?

What I find insensitive is how many people have been willing to overlook his offensive views in their rush to praise him and calling on others to honour someone who was an unapologetic racist who spent a lot of his time and energy sowing seeds of division and hate. Interesting that you are more exercised about criticising me for calling out Mr Kirk's vile opinions than you are about criticising the opinions he held.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

What I find insensitive is how many people have been willing to overlook his offensive views in their rush to praise him and calling on others to honour someone who was an unapologetic racist who spent a lot of his time and energy sowing seeds of division and hate. Interesting that you are more exercised about criticising me for calling out Mr Kirk's vile opinions than you are about criticising the opinions he held.

But what strikes the correct balance. Most of the people praising Kirk have presumably agreed with him, more or less.

And, yes, some of views were indeed vile.

Yet, once again, he was adjusting his views that middle-eastern country --- and it was causing problems for him, and may have contributed to his death.

That's more important than "loyalty" to one side or the other.

 

[Angela Channing]

But what strikes the correct balance. Most of the people praising Kirk have presumably agreed with him, more or less.

And, yes, some of views were indeed vile.

Yet, once again, he was adjusting his views that middle-eastern country --- and it was causing problems for him, and may have contributed to his death.

That's more important than "loyalty" to one side or the other.

No one is all bad. However, just because Mr Kirk may or may not have changed his view on the situation in the Middle East, doesn't negate the fact that he also held some pretty repugnant sexist and racist views. I don't see how calling out those opinions are insensitive.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

he also held some pretty repugnant sexist and racist views. I don't see how calling out those opinions are insensitive.

I guess it's a matter of degree. It's just that the right-vs-left thing shrinks into insignificance given what happened and, probably why.

 

[Angela Channing]

I guess it's a matter of degree. It's just that the right-vs-left thing shrinks into insignificance given what happened and, probably why.

Most things are really less about right vs left and more about right vs wrong. I think traditional veiws about what it means to be left or right no longer hold.

 

[CeeCee72]

Here's my question about this whole mess:

Are we all sufficiently distracted from the wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and many other hot spots around the world, the Epstein files, the president’s physical and cognitive decline, the inappropriate deployment of the National Guard to cities that don’t want it, amped up book bannings in schools and libraries, and our daily slide down into fascist authoritarianism?

 

[Frank Underwood]

I'm assuming you mean me but you don't have the guts to address me directly.

I don't know what your tough guy act is about, as I've addressed you directly many times. I just decided to be a little cheeky.

I expressed my sympathy for Erika Kirk because no one deserves to be murdered, particularly in the way her husband was. However, I'm not going to overlook the fact the Charlie Kirk held offensive sexist and racist views. Am I supposed to praise him just because he was murdered? Am I supposed to ignore the fact that he promoted deeply bigoted opinions?

What I find insensitive is how many people have been willing to overlook his offensive views in their rush to praise him and calling on others to honour someone who was an unapologetic racist who spent a lot of his time and energy sowing seeds of division and hate. Interesting that you are more exercised about criticising me for calling out Mr Kirk's vile opinions than you are about criticising the opinions he held.

As I said in my post, there are those who call out people for having vile opinions while supporting politicians who further violent wars. I find it to be an odd disconnect.

I'm certainly not a Charlie Kirk worshiper. I posted in another thread that Kirk viewed gun deaths as the price of freedom, and he ended up becoming one of those statistics. I thought his unwavering support for Israel was extremely misguided, which he seemed to realize towards the end of his life. However, I find labeling someone "a racist, a sexist, a bigot," etc. to be counter-productive if you don't bother to cite your reasoning. Being a MAGA conservative, I'm sure he held many views that were far from progressive. However, I find it interesting that you ask "am I supposed to praise him just because he was murdered?" considering you only started criticizing him after he was murdered.

Lastly, saying that Kirk's widow deified him seemed a bit harsh. As I pointed out, it's not unusual for people to see their loved ones through rose-colored glasses after they die. To say that Kirk or his widow's behavior is "unchristian" also seemed like a low blow. I'm not religious, but Christianity teaches that everybody's a sinner in need of forgiveness.

Here's my question about this whole mess:

Are we all sufficiently distracted from the wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and many other hot spots around the world, the Epstein files, the president’s physical and cognitive decline, the inappropriate deployment of the National Guard to cities that don’t want it, amped up book bannings in schools and libraries, and our daily slide down into fascist authoritarianism?

Probably, but I'm not sure it matters. Distraction or no distraction, Gaza and Ukraine would remain a mess, The Epstein files cover up was a success, the National Guard would still be in people's front yards, and we'd still be on our 2nd decrepit president. Instead of arguing over Charlie Kirk, we'd go back to fighting amongst ourselves over whether or not the Ukraine War should continue, whether opposing Israel's genocide makes you a Nazi, and whether Biden or Trump was the biggest war monger or is in the worst health.

 

[CeeCee72]

Probably, but I'm not sure it matters. Distraction or no distraction, Gaza and Ukraine would remain a mess, The Epstein files cover up was a success, the National Guard would still be in people's front yards, and we'd still be on our 2nd decrepit president. Instead of arguing over Charlie Kirk, we'd go back to fighting amongst ourselves over whether or not the Ukraine War should continue, whether opposing Israel's genocide makes you a Nazi, and whether Biden or Trump was the biggest war monger or is in the worst health.

And all that arguing wouldn't accomplish a damn thing, but at least we would be talking about something that MATTERS.

This Kirk assassination has devolved to the point that he isn't even part of the story anymore.

 

[Frank Underwood]

And all that arguing wouldn't accomplish a damn thing, but at least we would be talking about something that MATTERS.

This Kirk assassination has devolved to the point that he isn't even part of the story anymore.

Who knows? Maybe discussions about Israel will become relevant again now that Bibi Netanyahu is trying so hard to convince people he didn't have Charlie Kirk killed.

 

[CeeCee72]

Who knows? Maybe discussions about Israel will become relevant again now that Bibi Netanyahu is trying so hard to convince people he didn't have Charlie Kirk killed.

If that is in fact true, we will NEVER know. Even posting it on the Internet will probably get you fired - or worse

 

[Angela Channing]

I don't know what your tough guy act is about, as I've addressed you directly many times. I just decided to be a little cheeky.


As I said in my post, there are those who call out people for having vile opinions while supporting politicians who further violent wars. I find it to be an odd disconnect.

I'm certainly not a Charlie Kirk worshiper. I posted in another thread that Kirk viewed gun deaths as the price of freedom, and he ended up becoming one of those statistics. I thought his unwavering support for Israel was extremely misguided, which he seemed to realize towards the end of his life. However, I find labeling someone "a racist, a sexist, a bigot," etc. to be counter-productive if you don't bother to cite your reasoning. Being a MAGA conservative, I'm sure he held many views that were far from progressive. However, I find it interesting that you ask "am I supposed to praise him just because he was murdered?" considering you only started criticizing him after he was murdered.

Lastly, saying that Kirk's widow deified him seemed a bit harsh. As I pointed out, it's not unusual for people to see their loved ones through rose-colored glasses after they die. To say that Kirk or his widow's behavior is "unchristian" also seemed like a low blow. I'm not religious, but Christianity teaches that everybody's a sinner in need of forgiveness.

What has "politicians who further violent wars" got to do with this? That sounds like a variation of your propensity to turn every subject into a criticism of Joe Biden or the Democrats.

Like most people in the UK, I had never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was murdered so I had no opinion of him or his views. Since his death, we have been bombarded with news of him which is how I became aware of some of his opinions. I have read some of the things he said and they are truly awful and it disappoints me that so many people are trying to draw a veil over his views so they can venerate him in death.

You seem to be in denial that Mr Kirk was a racist and sexist. Do you not consider the following statements of his to be racist and sexist, or maybe you agree with them?

• "If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified." – The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024
• "If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?" – The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022
• "Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more." – The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023
• "If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?" – The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024
• "Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge." – Discussing news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement on The Charlie Kirk Show, 26 August 2025

You claimed I brought religion into this discussion but this thread is about Mrs Kirk's speech and in it she was the one who framed everything around her and her husband's faith. So I don't think it's unreasonable to call some of her and her husband's views as being unchristian.

I said it was wrong that some people were trying to turn him into something close to a deity, I wasn't specifically talking about his widow but making a general comment. But look at the words in her speech and tell me that isn't what she is saying (a reminder that the Bible says Jesus stands at God's right hand and that archangels such as Gabriel, stand in his presence):

"Now and for all eternity, he will stand at his Saviour’s side, wearing the glorious crown of a martyr."

You talk about forgiveness but that can only happen when individuals repent of their sins. When Mr Kirk's supporters denounce his racist and sexist views, then we can talk about forgiveness.

 

[Frank Underwood]

What has "politicians who further violent wars" got to do with this? That sounds like a variation of your propensity to turn every subject into a criticism of Joe Biden or the Democrats.

It's relevant because some on the left have the propensity to be more outraged by repugnant speech than by politicians who implement racist and violent policies.

Like most people in the UK, I had never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was murdered so I had no opinion of him or his views. Since his death, we have been bombarded with news of him which is how I became aware of some of his opinions. I have read some of the things he said and they are truly awful and it disappoints me that so many people are trying to draw a veil over his views so they can venerate him in death.

You seem to be in denial that Mr Kirk was a racist and sexist. Do you not consider the following statements of his to be racist and sexist, or maybe you agree with them?

• "If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified." – The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024
• "If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?" – The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022
• "Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more." – The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023
• "If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?" – The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024
• "Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge." – Discussing news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement on The Charlie Kirk Show, 26 August 2025

I'm not in denial about anything. I just think if people are going to make serious allegations about someone, then they should be prepared to back it up.

Perhaps you overlooked one of my earlier posts where I said I wasn't familiar with everything Charlie Kirk said or believed. I do appreciate you bringing these particularly contemptible comments of his to my attention. I knew very little about Charlie Kirk prior to his death. I just think the issue of free speech vs. violence is bigger than one man.

You claimed I brought religion into this discussion but this thread is about Mrs Kirk's speech and in it she was the one who framed everything around her and her husband's faith. So I don't think it's unreasonable to call some of her and her husband's views as being unchristian.

I said it was wrong that some people were trying to turn him into something close to a deity, I wasn't specifically talking about his widow but making a general comment. But look at the words in her speech and tell me that isn't what she is saying (a reminder that the Bible says Jesus stands at God's right hand and that archangels such as Gabriel, stand in his presence):

"Now and for all eternity, he will stand at his Saviour’s side, wearing the glorious crown of a martyr."

You talk about forgiveness but that can only happen when individuals repent of their sins. When Mr Kirk's supporters denounce his racist and sexist views, then we can talk about forgiveness.

As an agnostic, I don't have a dog in this fight. I just noticed that Christians often judge each other from a God-like perspective. Sure, I found it over the top when Erika Kirk invoked religious imagery regarding her husband. However, considering he was brutally murdered, I can see why she desperately wants to believe that her husband is with Jesus. That's why I'm willing to cut her some slack. As far as forgiveness goes, it's ultimately up to God (assuming there is one) to decide if a person has properly repented.

 

[Laurie!]

The people I hear shouting the loudest about Charlie Kirk's murder are just using a dead man to move forward their pre-existing agenda. The radical, morally bankrupt, old, TACO orange buffoon at the top needs to implement a national emergency declaration eventually to cancel the upcoming elections (that he pre warned you wouldn't be necessary if you elected him)....and a form of civil war incited by their supporters but blamed on "them" fits the bill just fine.

As for the Clintons and not facing consequences....correct me if I'm wrong but both Bill and Hillary have testified under oath over several grueling days. When's the last time TACO did that? He faces zero consequences....ever.

Oh the Hunter Biden of it all...perhaps he made a million by using his father's position. Well, the Trump buffoons have made billions on the taxpayer dime and don't even begin to think it's corrupt.

Bottom line is....if someone needs my help, I don't ask them what political side of the aisle they're from. I couldn't care less. I like good, hard working, honest people. Which is why I can't stand Trump and his morally bankrupt minions who only work to move forward their own greedy aspirations.

On a side note...the alleged murderer seems to have been born to a family that groomed him to believe guns were the resolution to conflict. That isn't leftist. BTW....what was the shooter's name who caused the pantyliner on TACO's ear? Strange we never hear about him anymore isn't it??? Hmmm.....

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

What has "politicians who further violent wars" got to do with this? That sounds like a variation of your propensity to turn every subject into a criticism of Joe Biden or the Democrats.

You have got to stop that. He criticizes both sides -- all the time -- when necessary. Your endlessly asserting otherwise just destroys your credibility, such as it is.

Your kind of unhinged pseudo-leftism is the same thing that cost us the gov't over here. The slimy Republicans didn't do it on their own; the Democrats handed it to them on a platinum platter.

 

[Frank Underwood]

The people I hear shouting the loudest about Charlie Kirk's murder are just using a dead man to move forward their pre-existing agenda. The radical, morally bankrupt, old, TACO orange buffoon at the top needs to implement a national emergency declaration eventually to cancel the upcoming elections (that he pre warned you wouldn't be necessary if you elected him)....and a form of civil war incited by their supporters but blamed on "them" fits the bill just fine.

As for the Clintons and not facing consequences....correct me if I'm wrong but both Bill and Hillary have testified under oath over several grueling days. When's the last time TACO did that? He faces zero consequences....ever.

Oh the Hunter Biden of it all...perhaps he made a million by using his father's position. Well, the Trump buffoons have made billions on the taxpayer dime and don't even begin to think it's corrupt.

Bottom line is....if someone needs my help, I don't ask them what political side of the aisle they're from. I couldn't care less. I like good, hard working, honest people. Which is why I can't stand Trump and his morally bankrupt minions who only work to move forward their own greedy aspirations.

On a side note...the alleged murderer seems to have been born to a family that groomed him to believe guns were the resolution to conflict. That isn't leftist. BTW....what was the shooter's name who caused the pantyliner on TACO's ear? Strange we never hear about him anymore isn't it??? Hmmm.....

Trump is the only US President to be a convicted felon, with a staggering 34 felony convictions against him. That's certainly more consequences than most politicians have faced. He was also under investigation during most of his first term over Russia-gate. Of course, many of the criticisms against him are true. Despite all of his "America first" posturing, he's just another war mongering/pro-Israel President screwing over the working class. Politicians have found a way to leverage their position of power to enrich themselves and their nepo-babies while offering the public a bunch of empty rhetoric. Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden, Trump, it really doesn't matter in the long run.

They're all one big cabal of war mongers who spent the last 40+ years screwing over the poor and enriching themselves. Reagan was hostile towards welfare recipients in the 80s, and that continued well through Clinton's two terms in the 90s and even into the present day. It doesn't matter what party you vote for or support, as they're all corrupt.

As for the murder of Charlie Kirk, it has brought a lot of issues to the surface. It's become a case of free speech vs. violence. Both his supporters and critics believe they have the moral high ground, but people on both sides are using his death to sow more hate and division. Unfortunately, calls for unity are often hollow and short-lived. Whether the shooter identified as left or right shouldn't really matter, but both sides like to craft their own narrative in these cases to further push their agenda. Whatever the shooter's politics, the fact remains that he's a murderer who felt entitled to kill someone because he didn't like their speech. That's something everybody should be concerned about.

 

[Laurie!]

Trump is the only US President to be a convicted felon, with a staggering 34 felony convictions against him. That's certainly more consequences than most politicians have faced.

Are you really trying to suggest that being tried, accused and convicted without doing any jail time, being imposed any real punishment is a "consequence"???

If that's the case, the Clintons have certainly "done their time" because at least they faced the questions under oath and no Republican or Democrat majority government brought charges. TACO runs from testifying under oath and so do his cronies....and his profiteering from the White House is so egregious, nobody else even compares for a whataboutism argument.

Whatever the shooter's politics, the fact remains that he's a murderer who felt entitled to kill someone because he didn't like their speech. That's something everybody should be concerned about.

I agree with that and ironically, Charlie Kirk believed his own death by gun was worth it for other people's 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Are you really trying to suggest that being tried, accused and convicted without doing any jail time, being imposed any real punishment is a "consequence"???

If that's the case, the Clintons have certainly "done their time" because at least they faced the questions under oath and no Republican or Democrat majority government brought charges. TACO runs from testifying under oath and so do his cronies....and his profiteering from the White House is so egregious, nobody else even compares for a whataboutism argument.

As I said, it's more of a "consequence" than most politicians have received. I certainly don't believe they've all escaped having to do any time because they're innocent.

Of course, they all profit from their time in The White House. They make connections that lead to speaking engagements, book deals, and other lucrative business deals with foreign and domestic companies. Pay-to-play deals are also quite common while a president is in office. People (often foreign entities) pay for access to the president. I don't consider it "whataboutism" to point this out because most people who get into politics are typically corrupt to begin with or become corrupted over time. That's why we have continuity of war funding abroad and economic inequality at home, regardless of which party is in control. The goal of both parties is to keep us divided over the culture wars.

Trump's ICE raids and misuse of the National Guard certainly take it up a notch. However, the Constitution has been under attack since Bush Jr. began "the war on terror." Every administration since then has used that as an excuse to suspend habeas corpus at their discretion and to engage in warrantless surveillance. So much for our "rights."

I agree with that and ironically, Charlie Kirk believed his own death by gun was worth it for other people's 2nd amendment rights.

Yes, I've acknowledged that as well.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

As soon as he was murdered, folks started whispering about there being a trans or trans-connected suspect involved. And then it happened.

One wonders if the recent spate of trans-connected shootings were some kind of a set-up for what came later.

Not that any political assassination is ever a conspiracy, nor the official story ever flawed or objectively false.

Only crazy people think that.

 

[Frank Underwood]

As soon as he was murdered, folks started whispering about there being a trans or trans-connected suspect involved. And then it happened.

One wonders if the recent spate of trans-connected shootings were some kind of a set-up for what came later.

Not that any political assassination is ever a conspiracy, nor the official story ever flawed or objectively false.

Only crazy people think that.

The timing of the shot was certainly eerie (from CNN) :

Wearing a white shirt with the word “FREEDOM” in black letters, Kirk basked in the cheers of his 3,000-strong flock of admirers and would-be adversaries, casually flinging red and white “Make America Great Again” and “47” caps into the crowd.

Then he took a seat under a tent reading “PROVE ME WRONG,” and began the show.

About 20 minutes in, a young audience member stepped up to the microphone to try to do just that.

“Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?” he asked.

“Too many,” Kirk quipped. The crowd clapped and cheered.

Five, the audience member claimed. “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?” the man continued.

Kirk leaned forward and picked up his mic before setting back into an upright position. “Counting or not counting gang violence?” he said.

A loud “pop” suddenly rang out.

 

[KayLloyd]

Can we please try remember that regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Charlie Kirk or Trump, two very young children have had their father taken away from them?